What about gay parents?

[evmori]

Merlyn,

Don't you mean the #1 charter partner among educational organizations? Remember, more organizations charter BSA units that schools! And by chartering a BSA unit a public school is not violating anything except your feelings.

 

So, how many units are NOW chartered by public schools? Do you have any current numbers?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[tjhammer]

BobWhite, thanks for posting the data to support your claim that an "overwhelming majority" of parents agree with the BSA's prejudice against gays. Pardon me if I'm somewhat underwhelmed by the data presented so far.

 

This was based solely on "BSA Internal Research" surveying 2400 people. Exactly which 2400 people were surveyed? From what geography? What demographic? What was the question? Which chartering organizations were surveyed?

 

I don't doubt that "opinion" is generally in favor of BSA's prejudice, by I also don't doubt that opinion is dramatically shifting, especially among the young parents with kids entering Scouting age. And while I don't much care to debate "statistics" (though I do find it consistent for BSA to do so, given Roy William's previous statements that the policy would be revisited if more parents started to pull their kids away).

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

Don't you mean the #1 charter partner among educational organizations?

 

No Ed, I mean #1 by total membership.

 

And by chartering a BSA unit a public school is not violating anything except your feelings.

 

You're wrong Ed, but you don't understand first amendment issues anyway.

 

So, how many units are NOW chartered by public schools? Do you have any current numbers?

 

Not since the BSA said they would stop, no. At around the start of this year, counting just Packs and Troops but not Crews, etc, that number was still over 9,000. It's supposed to go down to zero now, of course.

[evmori]

Merlyn,

I understand the issues just fine. You just can't explain your position.

 

So is that number down to zero?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[matthillnc]

Hi everyone, I have been gone to a conferene in Illinois since Tuesday, so that is why you haven't seen me in here.

 

I won't take long to respong to this whole conversation.

 

OldGreyEagle asked what the goal of this conversation was because it wasn't going to change the policy and it will not, most likely, change any one's opinions.

 

The goal is this (and it was one of the things I actually was learning at the conference this week which was a leadership training conference):

 

Conversation is not always meant to change people's opinions. Conversation on a topic or issue, alone, will never do that. Of course it is possible that a person's opinion can change after conversation on an issue and it happens every day in our world.

 

The goal of my original post and the other posts and the goal of this whole thing is not to fight with each other or laugh at the forum posts but to inspire action.

 

Conversation does not change policy or opinions, but it can cause people to relize where they stand and what their emotions are. Once people are aware of themselves, they can be inspired to take action in order to help change anything in the world.

 

We live in a world of possibility and there must be a healthy disregard for the impossible. In 2005, my work to change the BSA policy might not change anything now, but my vision is that one day the BSA policy against gay youth and adult members will no longer exist. Although that vision may be unrealistic for 2005 and although I may not be able to accomplish this in my lifetime, I can help to create conversation and work towards my vision, hoping that what I do will inspire others to take similar or different action in achieving the same goal.

 

Martin Luther King, Jr. did not live to see his goal of a de-segregated America, but his vision came to be after his death through his conversation and action which ultimately caused others to take action for generations to come and make his vision become a reality.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Someone a few posts back said that if a Scout were to ask them if homosexuality was a sin, they would say "yes". I don't think it's as simple as that. That answer just reflects that leader's religious views. Several posters here seem to have forgotten that there is a difference between "fact" and "belief". Answering in such a factual manner is just impressing the leader's particular religious beliefs upon the Scout, and I don't believe that that's what we're in Scouting for.

 

"Belief" is a very powerful thing, but that doesn't make it "fact", except for those who's belief is very strong. And that's fine, but just because someone has very strong belief doesn't give them license to impress that belief on others.

 

Perhaps a more appropriate answer would be something to the effect of "there are some, if not many, religions that believe that homosexuality is a sin. The Boy Scouts of America believe that homosexuals are not appropriate role models for Scouts, and so, won't allow them membership."

 

Regards statistics, I have been told unofficially, in casual conversation with those who supposedly "know" (and, I really don't know if they do or not, so take this with a grain of salt), that the study on "gay approval" done by BSA shows an overall approval of the current policy, but that approval is skewed towards the older demographic group within the study. That is, the younger the responder, the more likely they were to oppose the current gay policy. In itself, that's meaningless, because I doubt that any of the responders are in any position to do anything about it "officially". But, it would seem to mimic what is seen in the general public, that is, an acceptance of gays skewed towards younger members of the population. But, as we all should know, you can pretty much make statistics look any way you want, especially if the general public doesn't have access to the raw data. It'd be interesting to see that, but I don't know if BSA would change anything even if 60% if those polled thought the policy was wrong.

[tjhammer]

OGE asks why we have this discussion on this forum.

 

1) to help the leaders that read here be more sensitive to this issue, and cause them to think through the issue (hopefully) in advance of encountering it in real life in their unit.

 

2) to better understand those people that have opposing views of my own, and completely understand their arguments.

 

3) to place into the general "consciousness" of Scouting volunteers an articulate (as best I can) response to BSA's policy of prejudice (this forum seems to be about the most visible "discussion" of Scouting taking place online).

 

4) by "coming out" in the forum (albeit "avowing anonymously"), which I did not do until about a year into the discussion, I also hoped to provide an example of a gay man that loves (and was of value to) Scouting. I agree that most people with prejudice hold that because of stereotypes, and have very limited real, close experiences with gay people. Posting here just barely qualifies as a "close experience", I suppose, but it's a step in the right direction.

 

4) to change some opinions (which hopefully has a ripple effect though membership and ultimately decision makers, both of whom I suspect are reading here on occasion).

 

When I first started posting here about three years ago, I was one of only two or three (that I remember) people here that ardently argued against the BSA's gay policy. There were a handful of others that were rather lukewarm on the debate, and there seemed to be a very vocal group of people who supported BSA's prejudicial policy. I've noticed over recent years far more people joining the discussion and arguing against the BSA policy, and far fewer people vocally arguing in favor of it. I don't read too much into this, other than to note it's interesting to me.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[tjhammer]

Though I must add, I don't have any short-term expectations of a change in BSA policy.

 

The current administration (including the Chief Scout Exec and his team, as well as the Nat Exec Board and the Nat Relationships Committee (where this policy was born and further clarified), are either incapable or unwilling of building consensus on this issue.

 

Their own internal research (however likely skewed) still shows a sizeable percentage of parents disagree with this policy, and they heard from several chartering organizations (many that even filed friends-of-the-court briefs) against BSA's position. But those that oppose BSA policy speak far more quietly to BSA than those that support it, at least for now.

 

I was very discouraged (and disappointed) when BSA decided to "affirm" their policy about two years ago. Many hoped that BSA would emerge victorious from "Dale" and then quickly announce a local option policy, showing that BSA deserved the right to set its own standards, and that was what the "fight" was all about. Instead, they dropped the ball, in my opinion, by extending the prejudice argument further. That was BSA's chance to completely neutralize this entire issue, and do so in a way that would have shown integrity and caused little to no real "disruption" to Scouting.

 

I was in contact directly with a CSE from one of the major councils opposing BSA prejudice, and unfortunately we were both delusional on how the BSA would respond. We hoped for the best, but got the worst, and that cemented the BSA policy for many more years.

 

This policy now will only change (unfortunately) after BSA has suffered. When the membership continues to slide, and young parents either reject Scouting or ignore the BSA policy, Scouting will likely adopt a policy change as a part of a much larger overhaul of Scouting. That's a shame, because it would have been much easier (and less disruptive) to simply adopt local option right after "Dale".

 

The current administration has made up its mind on this issue. When Chief Scout Exec Roy Williams steps aside, perhaps a new leader with an ability to build consensus and inspire compromise within the decision making bodies will come along. Perhaps a new leader will be capable of articulating a solution where everyone is satisfied, anbd Scouting's image is intact.

 

It's more likely we'll go through at least one more administration before we find someone with the courage and willingness to try.

 

 

[acco40]

Rooster, sorry but the engineer in me couldn't resist.

 

Rooster definition - normal: i.e. as not being a sin

 

Rooster statement: Ive never claimed to be without sin.

 

Acco40 statement: all of us are not free from sin

 

Acco40 postulate: If all of us are not free from sin, all of us are therefore sinful. Thus, being sinful is as normal as it gets!

(This message has been edited by acco40)

[Rooster7]

acco40,

 

I dont know how much of what you said was tongue in cheek, but heres my explanation for the perceived discrepancy in my pervious post:

 

When I used the word normal, I meant it in terms of acceptability. While sin is common, it should not be considered acceptable. Or rather, no specific sinful behavior should be regarded as acceptable merely because all are guilty of sin. If so, the standard of behavior for all of humanity would be the lowest discriminator.

 

[matthillnc]

Believing that homosexuality is a sin is just that... a belief. We all have different beliefs.

 

But whether homosexuality is or isn't a sin has nothing to do with it.... There are "sinful" parts to Scouting that are widely accepted, such as the Scout Oath... The Bible says in James 5:12... "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."

 

Taking an oath is sinful, yet ALL Boy Scouts EVERYWHERE take an oath. ooops... the BSA is purpetuating sin... OH NO!

[mmhardy]

Ah the Oath....almost forgot about that. Society of Friends; the Quakers, have refused to take oaths. Their belief is that one should tell the truth at all times. Taking an oath implies that there are two types of truthfulness: one for ordinary life and another for special occasions.

[Rooster7]

Matt,

 

Do you study Gods Word? Or do you simply look up verses?

 

James is warning believers not to swear by Gods name or by anything else that is sacred. He is not condemning the taking of solemn oaths. Jesus took an oath before Caiaphas (or at least, he responded affirmatively to one posed to him).

 

But even if your charge is correct, homosexuality would still be a sin. As to it being merely a belief yes, it is. But then again, every moral premise is based on a belief.

 

The question is - what moral beliefs is this society going to support? Where individuals derive their beliefs is a pointless exercise. Religious beliefs, family upbringing, government education, or something else in our society, none have more weight than any other. We are all entitled to an equal voice. That voice can be expressed on forums like this, through membership in an organization with common beliefs, or at the voting booth. In my case, Ive done all three. My point is declaring a moral belief to be null and void because its supporters are religious, is counter to the democratic roots of this country. They or we, as the case may be, are free to weigh in on any debate and influence any organization, including the U.S. government.

 

[evmori]

Matt,

You have to be kidding! Taking an oath a sin? I don't think so. You need to get your hands on a good study bible then get enrolled in a good bible study. Maybe then you will start to understand the meaning of the verses you are posting. It is apparent you don't understand them now.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

After reading this whole thread, a few things a pretty clear to me. First, it's obvious that BSA is making a moral judgment about homosexuality--although they don't state that it's a "sin," their statements clearly reflect a judgment that it is immoral. As far as I know, we haven't been told exactly how BSA came to such a conclusion, since religious groups disagree about it. I submit that it cannot be derived from the Scout Oath and Law without some external frame of reference, such a religion. Thus, it seems most likely that BSA's position is derived from the religious views of some (but not all) of its religious chartered organizations. It is this that makes some of us believe that BSA should shift to "local option" on this issue--just as it did on the question of whether women should be leaders in units. Of course, BSA doesn't have to do this--it has the legal right (after the Dale case) to keep its membership requirements unchanged. If it made this change, it would be able to reclaim its nonsectarian nature--it wouldn't have to explain why it caved in to COs who don't believe that women can be proper role models for boys, but refuses to cave in to those who think gay adults can be.